Martin's is a very dishonest post. By merely opening the thesis you will see that it refers to dioxin, heavy metals and similar pollution such as bliughted Europe and US in the 1980s. Nothing to do with CO2 fakery at all. A good example of how biased is Peter Martin.

The point is "anonymous" (how brave of you, that Hunt sees no issue with taxing polluters. Should it make any difference whether we're talking about CO2, or heavy metals, or other? of course not. Now back to work at the unnamed Liberal electoral office you go.